...including women and children...???

Post Reply New Topic

Why is it that whenever aid organisations talk about victims of different tragedies around the world (famine, war, natural disasters, etc...) they always mention "including women and children"?

I mean, there is nothing wrong with mentioning it but it just portrays men as being of less value and that its not that big of a deal that men are dying.

Because people seem to think woman and children are more important. I think it originated from the idea that children are the future and only women can have children.

It's stupid though, I agree.

Can't have children without the sperms.

Yeah but you can inject them or whatever, whereas a baby can't grow outside the womb.

personally i think it implies than women and children are weaker than men, not of more value, and therefore is a phrase people use to emphasise the need for aid. like men can cope but will somebody please think of the poor defenceless women and children. it's kind of half sexist half noble and always reminds me of titanic.

What? Doesn't anyone know men are a completely different species than women and children?

God! Of course we give the latter special attention! What, you think women and children can turn green and lift up trucks? That's a man's job!

Even though women and children are more defenseless, men overall live a more risky life. In the vast majority of countries in the world, women live longer and part of the reason is that men get killed doing risky business.

You always hear of how it is wise that women avoid walking alone at night, but the fact is that overall, the safety and well-being of men is less than that of women. Men may be raped less, but they get into other business like joining gangs, picking fights, driving dangerously, doing risky activities, refusing to go see a doctor unless something is REALLY wrong, but I guess in my second paragraph (this one), the thing is that in developed countries men put the risk on themselves by making unwise choices.

i know that, but that wasnt really my point. I wasn't saying they necessarily are more defenceless, just that they are thought of as being so (as your post just proved). You were talking about natural disasters and war etc- its nothing to do with their safety in ordinary society, it's about a person's ability to survive and people naturally assume a woman is equivalent to a child at doing so in extreme circumstances. its down to hundreds and hundreds of years of stereotyping and subordination. I would be flattered that your gender is considered capable of taking care of itself rather than complaining

This has nothing to do with devaluing men. You have to look at historical perspective. In the past, often women and children were not counted, because they were not considered important.

"Including women and children" is not only PC, it's more accurate. There was a time that "300" dead, was assumed to be only men.